Carnival 6,600 Passenger Mega Ship that runs on LNG!?!?!?

[iamchrisstone]

I have read that Carnival has 2 ships coming out (2019 and 2021 I believe) that will hold up to 6,600 passengers (at max capacity) and run on LNG instead of diesel. I can't find many more details than that.

 

That many passengers, I feel they would have to completely redo their deck plans and layouts. I can't imagine it with their current layouts. I read that the CEO said these new ships would not only NOT be any more congested, but possibly less congested than current ships.

 

Ok, so has anyone seen or read and able to direct me to more information? I'd like technical info regarding the LNG, but also just the amenities, maybe the floor plans and any other info that may have released.

 

For Carnival fans that have been intrigued by bigger ships on some of the other lines, this has GOT to be exciting. I'm excited!

[beachbum53]

This is something my wife and I are at odds about. She's excited about the mega ships. I am not. The Dream class is plenty big enough for me.

[lincdax]

Here is a link to an article about Carnival and LNG

 

https://www.ship-technology.com/features/carnivals-lng-fleet-ushering-new-generation-cruise-ships/

[NavarreCruiser]

I have sailed on 3 of Royal Caribbean's mega ships. The Oasis OTS, the Allure OTS, and the Harmony OTS. None of these ships felt crowded most of the time. These ships all are about 225 thousand tons and have about 6,000 to 6,500 passengers. Carnival's new LNG ships will come in at about 188 thousand tons. So Carnival plans to carry the same number of passengers in 16% less space. Can they do it and not feel crowded? Maybe and maybe not.

[beachbum53]

It's a shame that many of the older smaller ships have been relegated to short 3 & 4 day cruises.

[salty dingo]

Mega ships can get to fewer ports. So you end up with more sea days to enjoy all that stuff on your floating amusement park.

 

Definitely not for me!

[chengkp75]

The biggest problem I see with the LNG fueled ships is the "hoped for" infrastructure. You will note that the original ships, Aida, operate only in Europe, and the first ship actually tied up to an LNG barge to operate only in port, since the ship had no LNG tanks of her own. The two new ships, Aida and Costa, I believe, will also operate in Europe, where there is currently, and plans to expand, LNG bunkering infrastructure (pipelines, re-liquifaction plants, bunker barges, bunker terminals). The problem is that as far as the US is concerned, there is no commensurate infrastructure in the works. Carnival and other cruise lines that are planning new LNG powered ships are hoping that once they show a demand for LNG bunkers, that "someone else" will pony up the hundreds of millions of dollars, and years to build this infrastructure. Currently, there are only a handful of LNG bunkering facilities in the US (three only that I know of), two which are proprietary to the shipping company that uses them (and they are pretty small and low efficiency), and one designed for offshore supply vessels. Given that to provide the same energy as either marine residual fuel or diesel fuel, LNG requires 6 times the volume, this means the cruise ships will need to have fueling infrastructure at more than just the turn-around port, therefore increasing the cost of that infrastructure.

[cfr70]

It's a shame that many of the older smaller ships have been relegated to short 3 & 4 day cruises.

 

 

I find, the Liberty out of Pt. Canaveral is the perfect size and layout for me. It's large enough, but not too big or too small and never feels crowded.

 

I've never sailed "mega ships" but I know they're not for me. 6,000 passengers on a ship sounds more like a nightmare than a vacation.

[jwjax]

The biggest problem I see with the LNG fueled ships is the "hoped for" infrastructure. You will note that the original ships, Aida, operate only in Europe, and the first ship actually tied up to an LNG barge to operate only in port, since the ship had no LNG tanks of her own. The two new ships, Aida and Costa, I believe, will also operate in Europe, where there is currently, and plans to expand, LNG bunkering infrastructure (pipelines, re-liquifaction plants, bunker barges, bunker terminals). The problem is that as far as the US is concerned, there is no commensurate infrastructure in the works. Carnival and other cruise lines that are planning new LNG powered ships are hoping that once they show a demand for LNG bunkers, that "someone else" will pony up the hundreds of millions of dollars, and years to build this infrastructure. Currently, there are only a handful of LNG bunkering facilities in the US (three only that I know of), two which are proprietary to the shipping company that uses them (and they are pretty small and low efficiency), and one designed for offshore supply vessels. Given that to provide the same energy as either marine residual fuel or diesel fuel, LNG requires 6 times the volume, this means the cruise ships will need to have fueling infrastructure at more than just the turn-around port, therefore increasing the cost of that infrastructure.

 

Huh!!? I could not decipher this post??

[chengkp75]

Huh!!? I could not decipher this post??

 

Long story short, while Carnival plans on having ships that run on LNG, at present there is no way to fuel these ships in the US, so this can be a significant barrier to actually operating a fleet of cruise ships out of the US.

[Micahs Grandad]

Long story short, while Carnival plans on having ships that run on LNG, at present there is no way to fuel these ships in the US, so this can be a significant barrier to actually operating a fleet of cruise ships out of the US.

 

Could mean they will operate in Europe until infrastructure is available.

 

From what you have seen do you think the ships will be more crowded than say Vista class?

[chengkp75]

Could mean they will operate in Europe until infrastructure is available.

 

From what you have seen do you think the ships will be more crowded than say Vista class?

 

I haven't really studied the deck plans, so I can't give an opinion on that, but the raw figures suggest it would be.

[chengkp75]

Could mean they will operate in Europe until infrastructure is available.

 

From what you have seen do you think the ships will be more crowded than say Vista class?

 

I haven't really studied the deck plans, so I can't give an opinion on that, but the raw figures suggest it would be.

 

The first ships will definitely be operating in Europe, where Shell has agreed to build sufficient infrastructure.

[CruiseAdict218]

The biggest problem I see with the LNG fueled ships is the "hoped for" infrastructure. You will note that the original ships, Aida, operate only in Europe, and the first ship actually tied up to an LNG barge to operate only in port, since the ship had no LNG tanks of her own. The two new ships, Aida and Costa, I believe, will also operate in Europe, where there is currently, and plans to expand, LNG bunkering infrastructure (pipelines, re-liquifaction plants, bunker barges, bunker terminals). The problem is that as far as the US is concerned, there is no commensurate infrastructure in the works. Carnival and other cruise lines that are planning new LNG powered ships are hoping that once they show a demand for LNG bunkers, that "someone else" will pony up the hundreds of millions of dollars, and years to build this infrastructure. Currently, there are only a handful of LNG bunkering facilities in the US (three only that I know of), two which are proprietary to the shipping company that uses them (and they are pretty small and low efficiency), and one designed for offshore supply vessels. Given that to provide the same energy as either marine residual fuel or diesel fuel, LNG requires 6 times the volume, this means the cruise ships will need to have fueling infrastructure at more than just the turn-around port, therefore increasing the cost of that infrastructure.

 

The first design runs on a dual (LNG/Oil) AIDAprima, the next generation AIDAnova, Carnival XL will run on solely LNG power. As far LNG in the US theres only one terminal in Louisiana. A few more will be starting up soon in Texas, another in Lousiana, Maryland and Georgia. Will be interesting to see how Carnival plays this one out XL 1 is due in 2020 with #2 in 2022.

[jjmock]

LOL Super Walmart of the Seas

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[winddawn]

I support cruise ship companies being more eco friendly, but I have no desire to cruise on a "mega" ship of the size the OP mentioned. When ships that size become the norm, I'll find another way to enjoy my vacations.

[SNJCruisers]

I believe the first ship from the Carnival Corporation will be a Costa ship in 2019, followed by the 2020 and 2022 Carnival versions. Depending upon where and how many US based fueling options there are of course will be a determining factor as to whether the Carnival ships debut on this side or the other side of the pond.

[chengkp75]

The first design runs on a dual (LNG/Oil) AIDAprima, the next generation AIDAnova, Carnival XL will run on solely LNG power. As far LNG in the US theres only one terminal in Louisiana. A few more will be starting up soon in Texas, another in Lousiana, Maryland and Georgia. Will be interesting to see how Carnival plays this one out XL 1 is due in 2020 with #2 in 2022.

 

All of the ships will use "dual fuel" engines. The current design of dual fuel engines allow for nearly infinitely variable ratio of liquid fuel to gaseous fuel, from 0% gas to 100% gas. The terminal in Louisiana is an LNG export terminal, designed to re-liquify natural gas and pump it onto LNG ships. Unless there is an LNG barge, capable of carrying the fuel, re-liquifying the boil off, and pumping it to ships, after carrying from this terminal to wherever the cruise ship needs to load fuel, the terminal in Port Arthur is not usable for this application. None of the other terminals proposed or under construction are bunkering facilities. Tote Maritime has a terminal in Seattle/Tacoma for fueling their container ships from tank trucks, and Crowley Maritime has a terminal in Jacksonville for refueling their container ships, but they are only for their ships. There is an offshore supply vessel terminal in Fouchon, LA.

[bakersdozen12]

Huh!!? I could not decipher this post??

 

 

He lost me at “Blah, blah, blah...”

 

 

Long story short, while Carnival plans on having ships that run on LNG, at present there is no way to fuel these ships in the US, so this can be a significant barrier to actually operating a fleet of cruise ships out of the US.

 

 

If this means Carnival will keep the ships in Europe, I would be thrilled. I would love to be able to do more European cruises while still sailing on Carnival.

[declansdad]

LOL Super Walmart of the Seas

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

Wow, that's original.

[jimbo5544]

Wow, that's original.

 

 

 

They just cannot help themselves.... fairly sad

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[jasong38501]

The biggest problem I see with the LNG fueled ships is the "hoped for" infrastructure. You will note that the original ships, Aida, operate only in Europe, and the first ship actually tied up to an LNG barge to operate only in port, since the ship had no LNG tanks of her own. The two new ships, Aida and Costa, I believe, will also operate in Europe, where there is currently, and plans to expand, LNG bunkering infrastructure (pipelines, re-liquifaction plants, bunker barges, bunker terminals). The problem is that as far as the US is concerned, there is no commensurate infrastructure in the works. Carnival and other cruise lines that are planning new LNG powered ships are hoping that once they show a demand for LNG bunkers, that "someone else" will pony up the hundreds of millions of dollars, and years to build this infrastructure. Currently, there are only a handful of LNG bunkering facilities in the US (three only that I know of), two which are proprietary to the shipping company that uses them (and they are pretty small and low efficiency), and one designed for offshore supply vessels. Given that to provide the same energy as either marine residual fuel or diesel fuel, LNG requires 6 times the volume, this means the cruise ships will need to have fueling infrastructure at more than just the turn-around port, therefore increasing the cost of that infrastructure.

 

I found an article that I will try to post the link to that says Carnival has opted to bunker their LNG ships by a ship-to-ship method and they will be able to take on a 14 day supply at a time. This article was written with the Costa Smeralda in mind but they seem to be talking about all of Carnival Corps LNG ships in it. I thought you might find it useful and could get more out of it that I could as a helpless layman, haha.

I just struggle to believe that there isn't some sort of plan in place to make LNG readily available for the US cruise market within the next few years. By 2026 there will be at least 18 LNG new builds. (Carnival Corp-9, Disney-3, Royal-2, MSC-4) The European market cannot possibly handle all of them.

Anyway here is the link if it is interesting to anyone.

http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,costa-smeralda-paves-the-way-for-lng_49497.htm

[chengkp75]

I found an article that I will try to post the link to that says Carnival has opted to bunker their LNG ships by a ship-to-ship method and they will be able to take on a 14 day supply at a time. This article was written with the Costa Smeralda in mind but they seem to be talking about all of Carnival Corps LNG ships in it. I thought you might find it useful and could get more out of it that I could as a helpless layman, haha.

I just struggle to believe that there isn't some sort of plan in place to make LNG readily available for the US cruise market within the next few years. By 2026 there will be at least 18 LNG new builds. (Carnival Corp-9, Disney-3, Royal-2, MSC-4) The European market cannot possibly handle all of them.

Anyway here is the link if it is interesting to anyone.

http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,costa-smeralda-paves-the-way-for-lng_49497.htm

 

Yes, "ship to ship" is the only viable way to provide the amount of fuel in a reasonable time. However, know that "bunker barges" that are most common in the US, and that passengers see tied up to cruise ships, are less common in Europe, where they use small tankers in place of barges, and this is the "ship" to be used for transport. So, a fleet of small LNG tankers needs to be built. I won't debate their fuel figures, but I do know that LNG requires 4-6 times the volume of fuel to get the same energy output as residual fuel, so I'm a bit surprised that they claim they can operate for 14 days on 3600 m3.

 

One of the challenges that I know of with LNG fueled ships is that not only do the tanks need to be much larger (or carry less fuel) with LNG, but that the tanks cannot be placed along the sides of the hull, or in the bottom, as traditional fuel tanks are, but must be placed within the center sections of the engine room, which is "prime real estate" for the engines and machinery, and this is going to require a lot of redesign.

 

The problem in the US is that there is the huge domestic market, and now with export licenses being granted, there is a very lucrative market for exporting large quantities of LNG, for which a few large plants are either built or being reconverted. The marine application would be so small, it would require a large capital investment for a small market, so the oil majors would likely shy away. It will likely come, but I'm not convinced that it will be sufficiently strong to support a robust cruise market, given the number of home ports, within the next 2-3 years.

[Micahs Grandad]

Yes, "ship to ship" is the only viable way to provide the amount of fuel in a reasonable time. However, know that "bunker barges" that are most common in the US, and that passengers see tied up to cruise ships, are less common in Europe, where they use small tankers in place of barges, and this is the "ship" to be used for transport. So, a fleet of small LNG tankers needs to be built. I won't debate their fuel figures, but I do know that LNG requires 4-6 times the volume of fuel to get the same energy output as residual fuel, so I'm a bit surprised that they claim they can operate for 14 days on 3600 m3.

 

One of the challenges that I know of with LNG fueled ships is that not only do the tanks need to be much larger (or carry less fuel) with LNG, but that the tanks cannot be placed along the sides of the hull, or in the bottom, as traditional fuel tanks are, but must be placed within the center sections of the engine room, which is "prime real estate" for the engines and machinery, and this is going to require a lot of redesign.

 

The problem in the US is that there is the huge domestic market, and now with export licenses being granted, there is a very lucrative market for exporting large quantities of LNG, for which a few large plants are either built or being reconverted. The marine application would be so small, it would require a large capital investment for a small market, so the oil majors would likely shy away. It will likely come, but I'm not convinced that it will be sufficiently strong to support a robust cruise market, given the number of home ports, within the next 2-3 years.

 

One would have thought that the cruise industry would have thought this thru before making these huge investments in ships that cannot get here from there.

[FSHLOT]

LOL Super Walmart of the Seas

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I don't care who you are, that's funny!!

 

I love Carnival, and I have a sense of humor.:cool: